Jump to content


Robertxc

20 year claim limit in Scotland

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4199 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Update.......

Phone the sheriff's clerk today(Tuesday) and the HBOS has still not submitted a defense.

I'm off to court tomorrow to see what happens.

I'll post an update tomorrow.......


Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.

BOS Credit Card...........................Hearing Date 07/02/07

Full Settlement..............................13/02/07

BOS Bank Account .........................total charges £8,655.92

1st offer..............................................£1620.00 01/12/06 Rejected

2nd offer.............................................£3255.00 03/01/07 Rejected

Summary Action victory.................£1499.02 22/03/07

Full and Final offer............................£7,200 19/04/07

Pict...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck Pict.

 

To which pictish tribe do you belong? ;-)


Vital spark v Lloyds Tsb

2nd November 2006: 1st letter, requesting back statements, hand delivered to lloyds TSB: got receipt.

I have received the information on my accounts going back 6 (six) years but not going back to the begining of my hsitory with the bank, as I requested.

Think I'd best send a letter suggesting they send the lot and informing them that I have already paid the £10 for such information.

Mairi's awaiting my details so that she can help me work out the interest due on the charges taken.

 

Personal: growing and changing while ever remaining the same. Get to know me and tell me what I'm like coz I can't figure me out.

 

Quote: If you can't beat them, confuse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, having read all the arguments here, I'll run them by my solicitor to see what he says. If he is unhappy, then I think I'll have to forget going after the charges pre-5 years ago. If I can't convince him, I don't think I have a cat in hells chance of convincing a judge.

 

I'm having to go ordinary cause, so I don't really have much choice about using a solicitor. But to be honest, it does make me feel more secure being in professional hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I too am feeling shakey about this 20 year claim. I'll be extremely glad when Robertxc comes back on to clarify the situation.

 

Didn't Mackie win her/his case on the "20 year claim" basis? Somebody did and stated that they'd just bluffed it.

 

Can anyone clarify the situation, PLLLLEASE?


Vital spark v Lloyds Tsb

2nd November 2006: 1st letter, requesting back statements, hand delivered to lloyds TSB: got receipt.

I have received the information on my accounts going back 6 (six) years but not going back to the begining of my hsitory with the bank, as I requested.

Think I'd best send a letter suggesting they send the lot and informing them that I have already paid the £10 for such information.

Mairi's awaiting my details so that she can help me work out the interest due on the charges taken.

 

Personal: growing and changing while ever remaining the same. Get to know me and tell me what I'm like coz I can't figure me out.

 

Quote: If you can't beat them, confuse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking of you today, Pict. Will be there with you in spirit as will, I am sure most others on this board.


Vital spark v Lloyds Tsb

2nd November 2006: 1st letter, requesting back statements, hand delivered to lloyds TSB: got receipt.

I have received the information on my accounts going back 6 (six) years but not going back to the begining of my hsitory with the bank, as I requested.

Think I'd best send a letter suggesting they send the lot and informing them that I have already paid the £10 for such information.

Mairi's awaiting my details so that she can help me work out the interest due on the charges taken.

 

Personal: growing and changing while ever remaining the same. Get to know me and tell me what I'm like coz I can't figure me out.

 

Quote: If you can't beat them, confuse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seahorse,

 

The Bank have not breached their contract with the customer. The contract provides an express term which states that the Bank will apply a charge of a certain amount (changes in these amounts communicated to customers periodically in the leaflets which they send with your statements but few take notice off because the print is too small and lengthy) on the customer's default. When the customer defaults, the Bank apply the charge. The Bank is not in breach, on the contrary it is acting strictly in accordance with the contract.

 

The area of law we are dealing with is not contract, but unjustified enrichment. This is related to, but distinct from contract and has separate rules and consequences.

 

But it is ME who has broken the contract by bouncing a cheque, going overdrawn or whatever. And I have only now become aware of the unlawful penalties that have been applied for doing so. So surely contract law still applies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just returned from court.

We have been granted a decree and will receive the extract on the 22nd March.:)

Thanks to everyone who has helped me get through this. Lets hope nothing else happens and they pay up.


Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.

BOS Credit Card...........................Hearing Date 07/02/07

Full Settlement..............................13/02/07

BOS Bank Account .........................total charges £8,655.92

1st offer..............................................£1620.00 01/12/06 Rejected

2nd offer.............................................£3255.00 03/01/07 Rejected

Summary Action victory.................£1499.02 22/03/07

Full and Final offer............................£7,200 19/04/07

Pict...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update everyone, I've decided to seek a definitive (or as definitive as it gets) opinion on the limitation rules. This is going to take a couple of days.


Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to clarification on this, Robert,


Vital spark v Lloyds Tsb

2nd November 2006: 1st letter, requesting back statements, hand delivered to lloyds TSB: got receipt.

I have received the information on my accounts going back 6 (six) years but not going back to the begining of my hsitory with the bank, as I requested.

Think I'd best send a letter suggesting they send the lot and informing them that I have already paid the £10 for such information.

Mairi's awaiting my details so that she can help me work out the interest due on the charges taken.

 

Personal: growing and changing while ever remaining the same. Get to know me and tell me what I'm like coz I can't figure me out.

 

Quote: If you can't beat them, confuse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been haring round, trying to find the equivalent section of the Prescription and limitation act (Scotland) 1973 (as amended) to S.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 all night.

 

Am I correct in thinking it is Section 11(3) as outlined in this case report?

 

"Prescription"

 

There are exceptions to this rule that apply in similar terms to the law in England and Wales. For example, Section 11(3) of the Act provides that where the creditor was not aware, and could not have with reasonable diligence been aware, that loss, injury or damage had occurred, the starting date for the running of time shall be the date when "the creditor first became, or could with reasonable diligence have become, so aware".

 

From paragraph 4.


18/11/2006 Recieved Statements from Barclays.

20/11/2006 Sent Prelim for return of £575.

27/11/2006 Received offer of £290.

4/12/2006 Sent LBA.

8/1/2007 Filed Small Claim at court.

12/02/2007 Full settlemant from Barclay's.

12/02/2007 LBA sent to Mint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let everyone know, there is now a copy of the Prescription & Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 available in th statutes forum, which is accessed from the forum home page.


Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent stuff, many thanks Robert. So it's S.6(4)(a) then?


18/11/2006 Recieved Statements from Barclays.

20/11/2006 Sent Prelim for return of £575.

27/11/2006 Received offer of £290.

4/12/2006 Sent LBA.

8/1/2007 Filed Small Claim at court.

12/02/2007 Full settlemant from Barclay's.

12/02/2007 LBA sent to Mint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks Robert

 

I think Section 9 has some bearing on my situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Robert. Will check it out.

 

Got the Vic tomorrow am so maybe tomorrow afternoon. :-)


Vital spark v Lloyds Tsb

2nd November 2006: 1st letter, requesting back statements, hand delivered to lloyds TSB: got receipt.

I have received the information on my accounts going back 6 (six) years but not going back to the begining of my hsitory with the bank, as I requested.

Think I'd best send a letter suggesting they send the lot and informing them that I have already paid the £10 for such information.

Mairi's awaiting my details so that she can help me work out the interest due on the charges taken.

 

Personal: growing and changing while ever remaining the same. Get to know me and tell me what I'm like coz I can't figure me out.

 

Quote: If you can't beat them, confuse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seahorse,

 

Your breach of contract is the trigger for the imposition of the charges. As a pursuer seeking return of these sums, you have to have a legal basis. You cannot cite your own wrongdoing as a justification for receiving a benefit (generally, the law does not allow a person to profit from their own wrongdoing).

 

The legal basis here is that the Bank has been unjustifiably enriched by the imposition of charges based on a clause of the contract which, if unlawful, would be unenforceable. This being the case, the Bank have money taken in circumstances where they had no legal power to take it and there is no good equitable reason for them to retain it. This is the law of unjustified enrichment.

 

Everyone else,

 

The relevant section of the 1973 Act is indeed s.11(3). s.6(4)(a) deals with postponement of the period where there has been fraudulent activity by the Bank, or the Bank has induced the customer into error as to their right to claim. There has been no fraud or error (as defined in law)in this situation, therefore the section has no bearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So by imposing their assertion that their charges are lawful on the customer (else, by not accepting the charges, the bank would not accept the customer), the bank has not induced the customer into error? Or by further stating after a claim has been made, they are STILL not inducing the customer into error? Is that what you are saying.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, by the way. I am merely trying to make sure I have everything clear in my head, as I have no doubt this is going to go all the way in Ordinary Cause, and I need to have all the arguments for and against before I make a definite decision. Appearing stupid in front of the judge will have very expensive consequences if I get it wrong. And I firstly need to convince my solicitor too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seahorse,

 

If you had challenged the Bank some time ago regarding the legality of the charges and they had represented to you that, for example, they had cleared the nature and amount of the charges with the FSA and/or OFT. This may amount to a misrepresentation inducing you into error as to your right to make a claim.

 

The fact that they impose the charges does not of itself induce you into error in the sense the term is used in 6(4). It is certainly possible to make an argument along the lines you imply, but I see stronger arguments against and in a litigation situation, while it is possible, and perhaps wise, to have various arguments to support your case, these takes time to formulate and argue and time is money, especially when your solicitor costs £250 an hour!

 

Once your claim has been made (you have a summons served on the Bank), you are regarded as having made a relevant claim (see s.9) which stops the prescriptive clock, so what the Bank says following this is pretty much irrelevant to the question of prescription.

 

Your solicitor will not require much convincing of the prescription point and, if he/she is any good, they really ought to advise you to try to push the boundaries. However, they should also make you aware of the dangers here. The Bank have deep pockets and, were you to push for too much and win in the sheriff court, the Bank may keep you in the appeal courts for years. They can afford to do that, you cannot. It is a game, just remember Jarndyce v Jarndyce and sometimes taking your gains/cutting your losses is the smartest thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re 6 4 a The banks have alleged over a long times in, publications, that everything they do is within the law- an induction of error in terms of the act and perhaps going as far as falling under 6 (4) b There is also the other part of Section 6 for some people regarding mental condition

 

case law suggests that, in some cases, depending on relationships between parties and the reputation of them that reasonable diligence might mean a consumer doing nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I have a full hearing of my claim for charges over six years on Tuesday 3rd April. I have been asked to provide details of successful claims over six years can anyone help with this please. I had decided not to pursue the case, but when I spoke to the court clerk she advised that I may have to pay costs so I have to go along and do my best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bong

don't suppose mine would help being in England? I got 13.5 years settled out of court from HSBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

I have a full hearing of my claim for charges over six years on Tuesday 3rd April. I have been asked to provide details of successful claims over six years can anyone help with this please. I had decided not to pursue the case, but when I spoke to the court clerk she advised that I may have to pay costs so I have to go along and do my best.

 

Bong

 

Well done !!!

I would be most grateful for the details

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So by imposing their assertion that their charges are lawful on the customer (else, by not accepting the charges, the bank would not accept the customer), the bank has not induced the customer into error? Or by further stating after a claim has been made, they are STILL not inducing the customer into error? Is that what you are saying.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, by the way. I am merely trying to make sure I have everything clear in my head, as I have no doubt this is going to go all the way in Ordinary Cause, and I need to have all the arguments for and against before I make a definite decision. Appearing stupid in front of the judge will have very expensive consequences if I get it wrong. And I firstly need to convince my solicitor too.

 

Did you speak to a solicitor, I am in the dock with Nationwide this week in Scotland court.


If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

I have a full hearing of my claim for charges over six years on Tuesday 3rd April. I have been asked to provide details of successful claims over six years can anyone help with this please. I had decided not to pursue the case, but when I spoke to the court clerk she advised that I may have to pay costs so I have to go along and do my best.

 

Any update on what happened? what went well and what didn't?


If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...